Can someone come and show SUBSTANTIAL evidence for a god or a creator? Anything that shows that god is the most likely explination? And not some mindless thought experiment, but actual evidence, that is what science works off of.

1) t-man is assuming that infinates can't exist. If that is the case, I ask him, what is the largest integer? Can you not take one step left ad infinitum? can you not progress 1 second forward ad infinitum? These are examples of inifinities that are real, so simply pointing it out doesnt do crap.
2) t-man says that the universe must have a beginning, but offers no logic for that. Why does it have to have a beginning? Why "must" the universe have a beginning, but not god?
3) t-man says that the universe must therefore have a creator. This is also bogus since the universe doesnt have to have a "creator" which implies intent, but merely a causation of accident of other, non-god, events. Having a start does not mean the same as having a creator.

1) There may be infinite possible integers but that doesn't mean that they all currently exist at this moment. You cannot find an example of every single possible integer in the universe. You could not take one step to the left or one second forward ad infinitum because that would take infinite time and time will never reach infinity.

2) My logic is that infinities are impossible. I have rebutted your so called "infinities".

3) If something was created than it has a creator by definition. I proved that the Universe was created in my 1st round argument.

1) t-man says that 1 second cannot keep passing because that would take an infinite amount of time and infinities don't exist. This is circular reasoning and so illogical. He also admits, "There may be infinite possible integers." Which is admiting that ininity can exist.

2) t-man has provided no logic as to why infinity doesn't exist, he only said that it doesn't. That is not a logical argument, but an unbacked opinion.

3) t-man hasn't shown that the universe was created. There is also a difference between a "creator" and a "cause," of which t-man has had no argument.

t-man has made no logical arguments, nor shown any evidence. All he has done was an illogical thought experiment, which in the start of the debate was stated to not do. As per reading through other debates, he is not allowed to add any new arguments in his last round and as he has had no logical arguments yet, votes should be awarded to Con.

1) I did not say that 1 second cannot continue ad infinite because infinities don't exist. That would be circular logic. It is imposable because no matter how much time has past there still would be more to go before infinity is reached. Also, I said, "There may be infinite POSSIBLE integers." There are infinite possibilities, but there are no infinities in reality.

2) You have been unable to give any valid examples of infinities. It is, therefore, most likely that they don't exist.

3) If something caused the universe to exist, that thing created the Universe. Therefore it is the Universe's creator.

Pro set up a typical first mover case, and con raised three objections. The first of these - is infinity possible - didn't really attack pro's contention and was well handled by pro. The second, why must the universe have a beginning and not god, was parried by pro. Pro should have answered the "and not god" part, instead of relying on his first-point analysis. Con did not push the "and not god part" in later rounds. The third point was, however, not handled by pro well- something that doesn't exist can be CAUSED as opposed to CREATED. Con's response was that a causer was a creator, but as pro pointed out, there is a difference in that cause suggests intent.

Burden of proof in this debate was clearly carried by pro. Therefore, pro had to meet all three of con's objections in order to win the debate. Pro did handle most of the objections, however, the third objection was not really analysed until the last round, and even then the analysis had already been addressed by con. On the third point, therefore, I am obliged to offer con the debate.

Reasons for voting decision: Pro is in denial that infinites exist. Pro has not proved that they do not. Just because something is caused does not mean that there is a creator. Pro should be smart enough to know that.

Reasons for voting decision: I agree with Larztheloser's comments. Both sides weak, but Pro never really addressed why his alleged cause is a god, and that was the essence of the debate.
The exploration of this topic was underly lucid ("cause" vs "creator") but still determinative.